Tax Avoidance (HSBC)

David Winnick Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend makes two good points. For the good of the public finances, we have taken tough action to deal with tax avoidance and evasion, and we will continue to do so, because that is what the British people expect of us.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Despite all the ministerial excuses, is not the truth that these tax cheaters and spivs—disgraceful people—are so connected with the Tory party that this Government will not take any action? They are allies of, and donate large sums to, the Tory party.

[Mr Gauke]

Putting aside the paranoia and conspiracy theories, let us consider the Government’s record and the steps we have taken, time and again, to ensure that those who should pay more in tax do pay more in tax. That is the reality.

Willenhall Crown Post Office

David Winnick Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

I applied for this Adjournment debate because of the strong concern felt in Willenhall, in the borough of Walsall, about the closure of the Crown post office. It is one of 70 such post offices that I understand are listed to be closed—[Interruption.] Perhaps I could have the Minister’s attention for a second.

Willenhall has been known over centuries for its lock manufacturing, and locks such as those by Yale are recognised everywhere and must have been used in every part of the country. Many of those lock firms have closed or move abroad, but Willenhall remains a thriving, residential, industrial place, and certainly needs to retain the Crown post office. Many people come to Willenhall market and frequently use the post office facilities, and the traders are obviously busy customers. The post office is located in the centre of the town, opposite the police station, and is very much part of the character of Willenhall. It certainly has no shortage of customers, and when I look in from time to time there is usually a queue. As far as I understand it, the argument for closure is not that the post office lacks customers, because that would not stand up.

I have no complaint about the way that the senior stakeholder manager—I think that is how he describes himself as part of the post office management—has kept me informed of developments. He has done so in a courteous way with e-mails about various developments, which I appreciate. Moreover, he has been willing to meet me and the councillors, including at a public meeting where he and his colleague were virtually in a minority of two.

My strong opposition to the closure is shared by those who live and do business in Willenhall. Willenhall should have its post office; it should be retained and I am totally opposed—obviously, hence this debate—to the decision to close it. As far as is possible, opposition to the closure is simply unanimous. I do not suppose the Minister is particularly surprised, because if a post office were to close in his area, there would no doubt be the same reaction. When I collected signatures for the petition, no one said, “I’m not interested,” which often happens with other issues. Indeed, they were only too willing to sign and knew what they were signing for. They were customers of the post office, or they were passing on the day that I was around collecting signatures, or on other days, and they took the view that the petition should be supported.

I do not take the view that the proposed alternative—a retail outlet—is an adequate replacement. The Post Office says, “The Crown post office will close, but before that happens a replacement will be found,” but as I set out, that will be along the lines of a retail outlet. I simply do not accept, any more than the elected representatives, the councillors, and those who live or do business in Willenhall, that that is a viable alternative.

The Communication Workers Union has also been active in supporting the community to oppose the closure. It will, of course, be said, “Well, one would expect it to do so; it is safeguarding jobs,” and even under this Government it is not considered a sin to try to preserve jobs. Nevertheless, we appreciate CWU support. Indeed, some of those in the CWU live locally and support the opposition to closure as residents as well as union members. The CWU makes the point that, in a recent report published in November 2012, Consumer Focus said that WH Smith was the worst performer on queue time, and that it scored badly on quality of service and accessibility. The report said that Crowns, on the other hand, perform the best on accessibility and show the most significant improvement, as well as scoring highly on quality of service. Perhaps that, too, can be taken on board.

Post Office management say that, once a transfer to a retail outlet is negotiated, there will be a public consultation over a six-week period. That seems nice and democratic. We are all in favour of consultation and going out asking people their views—I doubt whether anyone in the House would object to that—but the snag is that the consultation will be on anything but the crucial issue. It will not be a consultation on whether people want the post office to close. Indeed, at the public meeting I attended, I asked the person representing Post Office management who I have mentioned whether there will be any paper on which people can give their preferences, so they could say, “We want the post office to continue,” but there will be nothing of the kind. It is an odd form of consultation. The major issue is whether the Crown post office remains open. What is the consultation about? Will it be about whether there is enough car space in the proposed retail outlet or whether it is near toilet facilities and the rest of it? The crucial issue is the one I have described, but the people will not be asked.

The Minister—fair enough—might say in reply, “That’s not the normal practice.” I accept that and cannot say that things have been different elsewhere, but it would be a good idea to consult the public when a Crown post office is going to close, even if, at the end of the day, the decision remains the same. In that way, at least the people can give their views, for what that is worth.

A petition signed by many people, which I have mentioned, was handed to the Post Office. Walsall council, the local authority, at its meeting on 23 September 2013 carried a motion supported by all councillors. The motion stated that the council opposes proposals to franchise and/or close the Crown post office in Willenhall. The motion also states that to do so would downgrade the status of the office and lead to inferior customer service. It ends by saying that the closure of Willenhall Crown post office would have a negative effect on the local economy.

The latest information sent to me is that the franchise proposals, as they are described, will not occur in this financial year. There is not much left of this financial year, but the intention remains for franchising to occur in 2014-15. I wrote to the then Minister, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who replied on 30 June. Her letter could have been written by the Post Office—she did not add anything different from what Post Office management have told me. I invited her in my letter to come and visit Willenhall to see the position for herself. If she came in her ministerial role, she would be welcome—she would not be welcome in her politician role. No doubt she will say that Government policy is Government policy. Would it do any harm for a Minister to come and have a look at the situation? Since the Minister of State is responding to the debate, the invitation extends to him too. In Willenhall, he would be treated in a courteous manner, as one would expect, and he could have a look at the situation for himself. Would that do any harm? I do not think so. Perhaps in his reply he can state whether he will take up my invitation.

In conclusion, it is to be hoped that this decision is not set in concrete and that it can be looked at again. It is to be hoped that the views of the people of Willenhall can be taken into consideration in the proper way, and that it is recognised that this is a Crown post office with plenty of business. It is not a question of keeping it open out of sentiment. As I said, it does not lack customers. It is always busy and every time I go, there is a queue. We talk about localism. I hope that the views of the community can be taken into consideration on all these matters.

I do not have a great deal of hope. I will not pretend otherwise. I am sure, unfortunately, that the Minister will more or less state what was said to me in the ministerial reply. If that is so, I regret that, but I have no regrets at all—absolutely none—at raising on the Floor of the House of Commons an issue that is very important to my constituents. I believe I have a responsibility to do so. In doing so, I have the very strong feeling that there is hardly anybody in Willenhall, whether they are residents or traders, who would wish otherwise than to see the Crown post office remain open. I hope that that can somehow be taken into account by the Minister when he responds to my remarks.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)]

Let me begin by saying that the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) has certainly discharged his responsibility to his constituents by raising Post Office Ltd’s proposals to seek a franchise partner to operate Willenhall Crown post office. He has set out very clearly his concerns, and the concerns of his constituents, on the proposed changes, and I fully appreciate those concerns. As Members of Parliament, we all recognise that post offices are a vital part of the local community, and I understand the real issues and worries that some constituents may feel when changes to our post offices are proposed.

Such concern is not surprising given that there were two major closure programmes between 2003 and 2008, when six branches in his constituency were permanently closed. Five branches in my constituency were also permanently closed. I hope the hon. Gentleman recognises that this Government are taking a different approach. There is no programme of post office closures under this Government and there will be no such programme. We recognise the important social role that post offices play in our communities. Since 2010, we have committed nearly £2 billion to maintaining the post office network at a minimum of 11,500 branches. We are providing for the modernisation of up to 8,300 branches by 2018, bringing improvements such as longer opening hours for the Post Office’s millions of customers. We are also protecting 3,400 community branches and providing an investment fund to deliver improvements to those branches.

The post office network is made up of nearly 12,000 branches, the vast majority of which are owned and operated by private businesses and individuals more commonly known as sub-postmasters. Just 3% of the network—approximately 370 branches—is directly operated by Post Office Ltd. That is the so-called “Crown” network that the hon. Gentleman has spoken about. This small segment of the much wider post office network has historically incurred heavy losses, which amounted to some £37 million in the last full financial year. They account for nearly a third of the losses incurred by the whole network. That is not sustainable, and those losses cannot continue. They are a drain on the company, but, more important, they are a drain on the taxpayer. No business, including the Post Office, can continue to allow some of its high street branches to cost substantially more to run than they bring in. That, I am sorry to say, includes the branch at Willenhall, which I understand costs £1.44 for every £1 of income that it generates.

In return for the historic financial commitment that the Government are providing for the Post Office, we require the company to eliminate Crown losses by 2015. That is good commercial practice, and it is also fair to the taxpayer. The Post Office has a plan to end the losses, which includes working with retail franchise partners in 70 locations to provide continued access to post office services where the Post Office cannot do so viably itself.

As for the franchising proposals, it is important to be clear that Willlenhall is a loss-making branch. Following a process of careful consideration and modelling, the Post Office does not believe that it can operate the branch profitably or sustainably. However, it does believe that another retailer in the community can do so. It has therefore advertised the opportunity to local businesses and retailers, and has received expressions of interest from a number of parties. It is assessing those responses to ensure that the most appropriate partner is chosen to provide access to services, but until we know more details, we cannot take a proper view of how the franchising proposals will affect residents of Willenhall. However, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman and his constituents that this is not a branch closure. Customers will continue to enjoy access to post office services at a new branch close to the existing one.

[Mr Winnick]

The Minister says that it is not a closure, but it is a closure, to the extent that the existing building will close. There is no doubt about that, and indeed the Minister has not said otherwise. What he is saying is that the post office facilities will be transferred to a retail outlet, and I have not challenged that.

While I am on my feet, may I ask the Minister a simple question? Are the views of the local community on the role that the Crown post office in Willenhall plays and has played for so many years being taken into account?

[Michael Fallon]

As the hon. Gentleman himself mentioned, a consultation will take place, and the views of local residents will be important. I think he will concede that the post office is not in an ideal condition, in terms of the state of the building. It could also be argued that it is not in an ideal location. The key, surely, is to ensure that customers can continue to access post office services at a new branch that is close to the existing one. What we do know is that the full range of services that are currently offered will continue to be available at the new branch.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that before any changes are made, there will be that six-week local public consultation, under the terms of the code of practice agreed between the Post Office and the organisation Consumer Futures. The consultation will focus—perhaps this answers the hon. Gentleman’s question more directly—on the specific and detailed proposal to relocate the service. That will include issues such as the accessibility of the branch, the layout of the store, and the parking that would be provided. Anyone can express an opinion, and all responses will be considered carefully by the Post Office before a final decision is reached.

Already 17 former Crown branches have been reopened by the Post Office’s franchise partners. In these communities, customers are benefiting from continued access to the Post Office services they rely on, but in more modernised stores that deliver an improved customer environment and are fit for the 21st century. In all franchised branches customers are, importantly, also benefiting from longer opening hours, including in many cases on Sundays, too. That is important. It allows the Post Office to offer its customers the flexibility that they enjoy across the rest of the high street. Responding to its customer needs is the key to securing the long-term future of the network.

It is also the case that these franchised branches are now no longer a financial cost to the Post Office network. Franchising branches presents an excellent opportunity for a business in the locality, or a sub-postmaster, to take on and improve the branch. As with the many thousands of branches already operated by sub-postmasters, these franchised branches are being successfully operated by the Post Office’s business partners and sub-postmasters who are meeting the needs of their customers. They are also helping the Post Office become more sustainable and viable in the long term and reducing the need for taxpayer handouts.

[Mr Winnick]

I was not aware that the Minister was conversant with Willenhall, and he will no doubt respond on whether he will accept my invitation. He said that the post office is not in the most central place, but it is in the centre of Willenhall town. It is very near the market. I do not know of any location that could be more central in the town.

[Michael Fallon]

I am certainly going to pass the hon. Gentleman’s kind invitation on to the post office Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott), and perhaps she can go and see for herself and establish beyond any doubt whether the location is optimal. Of course, I stand to be corrected by the hon. Gentleman, as he will know it far better than any of the Ministers, but it is my understanding that it is not on the main high street. All I have seen is a photograph of the location, but let me pass on his very kind invitation and we will see whether my hon. Friend is able to find time in her diary to take it up herself.

Point of Order

David Winnick Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you can advise me on how we can secure a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or another Treasury Minister, about the substantial extra sums that are being given to the leading bank executives, the most senior people: the chief executives and their colleagues. For example, the chief executive of HSBC is to receive an extra £32,000 a week on top of his salary of more than £1 million a year.

May I point out, Sir, that the annual salary in my borough is about £22,000? The sheer greed of the bankers involved is quite disgraceful. A Treasury Minister is in the Chamber now; I wonder whether he will respond.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Winnick]

The Minister shakes his head. I can well understand his embarrassment, because we are constantly told that we are all in it together. Why can we not have a statement about what is happening in the banking industry? If the Minister is not willing to respond to my point of order, may I suggest that we should have some opportunity to raise the issue in the Chamber?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I understand that Ministers from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, who may be thought to have some interest in the matter, will be answering questions in the Chamber next week, and that the tabling of Treasury questions will take place next Wednesday. I know that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that it is always useful to have a bit of information, and I therefore proffer that to him and to the House.

The hon. Gentleman has made his point, and the Exchequer Secretary has certainly heard it—

[Mr Winnick]

But has remained silent.

[Mr Speaker]

He has not chosen to respond. We do not always have debates by means of point-of-order exchanges. However, the point has been registered very forcefully, and Ministers will be conscious of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

The hon. Gentleman is an extremely ingenious character. I feel sure that he will be present at business questions, and—I say this in the friendliest possible spirit—I know that when he has a bone in his mouth, he is inclined to chew on it, and to chew on it relentlessly. I feel sure that that is what he will do in this instance.

If there are no further points of order, we will come now to the ten-minute rule motion, and to the ever-patient Mr Benedict Gummer.

Tax Fairness

David Winnick Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

The mansion tax is not our only measure, but is an important one and we think it is necessary. I had thought that the hon. Gentleman supported a mansion tax. It is there on the table and it cannot be put in simpler terms—it is a one-line motion.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Is there not a contrast between the opposition of the Tories, in particular, to a mansion tax and their wholehearted enthusiasm for a bedroom tax? Does that not show the class divide on their side?

[Chris Leslie]

Absolutely, and I think that the contrast between the political parties is becoming clear. Let us contrast the Government’s approach where they feel they can get away with levying higher and more punitive costs—the bedroom tax being a classic example—with the enormous windfall that those earning £1 million a year will be getting from the cut to the top rate of income tax in only a few weeks’ time. It is grotesque.

Affordable Social Housing (Walsall)

David Winnick Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

I have asked for this short debate because of my continued concern about the acute shortage of affordable social housing. I understand why the Minister for Housing, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), is not present and see that the hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) will reply on behalf of the Government. She is supported by the Chief Whip—it is courteous of him to come along.

Related to the problems of the shortage of affordable rented accommodation in my borough is the reply that I received from the Homes and Communities Agency stating that it was currently not possible to fund some of the proposed housing development to be carried out by Walsall Housing Group. My concern arises, not surprisingly, from the number of constituents who see me at my regular surgeries and write letters and e-mails to me about housing. Housing is one of the chief topics of concern to my constituents, hence my pursuing the matter, as one would expect.

In many instances, it is a matter of people being rehoused in the first place because they are living with their in-laws, mothers or parents, or renting from a private landlord. In other instances, people are already housed in a rented flat but have young children and understandably want to live in a house. They therefore put their names on the waiting list, and when there is no response along the lines they would like, they understandably contact councillors and me, as a Member of Parliament. I then write to the relevant bodies.

I should explain—I am sure that the hon. Lady knows this—that housing was taken over by Walsall Housing Group from the local authority in March 2003, so the main supplier of affordable rented social accommodation in the Walsall borough is the Walsall Housing Group, and no longer the local authority directly. I concede that the replies I get are usually courteous and prompt—I have no complaints about that. The replies explain to me the position of the constituents I have written about, but rarely do they state that the people concerned are likely to be rehoused immediately or in the near future. They explain what category the people are in, and the band involved, but the people who have seen me already know that. Nevertheless, the information is officially put together and signed by the chief executive, and I pass on the reply to the constituent.

If accommodation was available, the position of Walsall Housing Group would be such that it would be only too pleased to offer a tenancy. I emphasise that it is the lack of anywhere near sufficient affordable housing in the borough that explains the long waiting times, which can be very long indeed. I do not suppose for one moment that the situation is different elsewhere.

I think that we can work on the reasonable basis that if the people involved could afford to do so, they would obtain a mortgage. I doubt whether many, if any, Members of Parliament are not owner-occupiers; as we know, in some instances they own more than one property. It is perfectly understandable that if someone has sufficient means they try to obtain a mortgage and service it accordingly. However, the annual average earnings in my constituency remain at under £23,000 which, as we can obviously all agree, is hardly a sum with which to maintain and service a mortgage.

In November, the National Housing Federation launched its report, “Home Truths 2012: West Midlands”. It had a well attended rally here—in fact, in the room next door—and made its points. Before the launch, I wrote to the federation, pointing out the situation in my constituency and saying that I hoped to obtain a debate on the matter. It was very supportive, and made the point that housing prices in my constituency are 6.7 times the average income. That is the situation faced by people who are not in a position to obtain a mortgage, who rely on rented accommodation and who have no particular desire, to say the least, to go to a private landlord.

I have to say that in all my years as a Member of Parliament I cannot recall a single constituent coming to me, or writing to me, to ask whether there was any chance that I could do anything to rehouse them with a private landlord—not once. The explanation is obvious: the insecurity, the high rents and the conditions of some of the privately owned properties. In my borough, and in all other parts of the country, the key issue is that people who cannot afford to buy seek good, affordable and secure accommodation, as I have described. We would do the same, would we not, if we were in the same position and could not obtain a mortgage.

Let me also make a point about the position of social housing in my borough. Some 21 years ago, in 1991, the total social housing stock amounted to some 36,000 properties. Last year, the total was less than 27,000, which is a reduction of somewhere in the region of 25%. The reason is obvious: tenants have bought—I have no complaint about that—but the accommodation is not replaced. When the legislation on that matter was going through Parliament, I said, “If tenants wish to buy they should be able to do so, but why not replace the accommodation?” Why not give local authorities or, in this case, the Walsall Housing Group, the opportunity of replacing the housing stock that is sold off?

The point that I wanted to make today is, as I am sure the hon. Lady knows, that Walsall Housing Group plans to build some 224 units. Fortunately, finance is available for some of the units, but more than half of the proposed development depends on finance coming from the affordable homes programme in the west midlands.

WHG accordingly wrote to the agency to explain the position, and I was informed of what was happening. I take a close interest, as is to be expected, in what is occurring or what people hope will occur, and I was copied in to the correspondence. When I wrote to the agency, the reply, as I am sure is known, was that the programme in the west midlands is fully committed for 2011 to 2015. Finance will not be available, therefore, unless something occurs, which it might, but the reply certainly indicated that it is unlikely that finance will be available before 2015, if then. I do not think I need to quote the letter, which I have here.

It is true that there are other housing associations in the borough, although they are nowhere near the size of WHG. All those housing associations have long waiting lists. When constituents see me and I say, “Have you been to anywhere else apart from WHG?” the response is usually, “Yes, but we get the same answer. It is no good even going on the waiting list, because it is simply too long.” Ultimately, we are back to WHG, whether or not it can supply the necessary work.

One other interesting statistic is that, since its inception in March 2003, WHG has built 470 houses. The arithmetic is pretty clear: some 47 houses a year against a background of such huge demand. The demand may be much less than in various other places—obviously, London and Birmingham go without saying—but that is no consolation to my constituents who are waiting to be rehoused.

I would also like to know what is being done about the section 106 agreement. As I understand it, that agreement is to ensure that, when private development occurs, land is available for social housing. The reply I received from the local authority seems to show that, since April 2009—and there has been a good deal of private development both before and since—a total of 13 shared ownership units and 56 affordable rented units have been secured through section 106 agreements. That does not seem to add up to a great deal, so perhaps some information should be given about that.

A moment ago I came in at the end of a debate on food poverty and the plight of so many people in this country as we approach Christmas. Two things are absolutely basic to people. First, there is the ability to find work. People are not skivers—if there are a few, so be it, but the overwhelming majority, like us, want to earn their living.

Secondly, people want decent, secure accommodation. One of the reasons why those of us who can be are owner- occupiers is that we want such secure accommodation. If we are in a position to pay back over a period of time, we want accommodation under our complete ownership. Those who cannot do that require rented accommodation with the same security.

Those two basic issues, jobs and decent housing, should always be at the forefront of our minds—certainly the minds of Labour MPs. I hope the hon. Lady will be able to give us some explanation of the situation I have outlined and that, despite the decision taken by the agency in question, it will be possible to reverse the decision and make finance available. What steps are being taken to build much more accommodation along the lines I have suggested, rather than what has occurred over the past 20 years?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Winnick]

I do not want other boroughs to suffer as a result of money that was due to them under the allocation going to us. I make that absolutely clear so that there is no misunderstanding. There are two aspects. First, is there not a better commitment so that the decision can be reversed? Secondly, will the hon. Lady take into account the number of people waiting? She mentioned what has been done, but it does not alter the fact that regardless of what has been done or remains to be accomplished, even if the units go ahead and the funding is made available, demand is great. It is even greater as a result of the economic situation. People who might have been able to obtain a mortgage are not in a position to do so because of job losses and so on. What she should have in mind—I hope that the Minister will have it in mind—is the actual demand for such accommodation, which is nowhere being met.

[Karen Bradley]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s comments. There is no quick fix to the problems that the Government inherited in terms of the supply of affordable social housing across the country. The Government are taking a variety of measures. I will come to them shortly. However, his points have been noted, and I will ensure that Ministers and others are well aware of his concerns and respond to him. If there are any points that I have not responded to, he will receive a letter.

Affordable rent is one key to increasing the volume of affordable homes, and this Government will provide it through smaller amounts of public sector investment than previously, allowing us to deliver more homes for every pound of Government investment. The average grant rate under the new programme is about £22,000, compared to an average of £60,000 under the former programme. Grant as a percentage of average scheme costs is now about 20%, compared with 45% formerly. That represents better value for money and should enable the Government to get more units of appropriate accommodation for the money invested.

That is just one example of the practical action that the Government are taking. However, as I said, it will inevitably take time to deal with the problem. The UK Statistics Authority has confirmed that 421,000 social rented homes were lost under the last Government. That loss cannot be reversed overnight, and it is seen in all our constituencies. I understand that last year in Walsall, for example, more than 14,000 households were on the housing waiting list, up from fewer than 6,000 in 1997.

Through the Localism Act 2011, we have given councils back the freedom to manage their own waiting lists. They can decide who qualifies for social housing in their area and develop solutions that make the best use of limited social housing stock. Our new statutory social housing allocation guidance gives councils more freedom to innovate. They can use social housing to encourage work and mobility, rather than leaving people stuck in dependency.

I am pleased to see that Walsall council is using those freedoms to good effect. Its social housing allocation scheme provides for priority to be given to working households, those otherwise contributing to the community and seriously injured former service personnel needing adapted social housing. I congratulate the council on taking those steps. It will certainly help Walsall to meet the hon. Gentleman’s request that people have appropriate homes. I sympathise. We want people living in homes that are the right size and appropriate for them and their families.

The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about section 106 delivery. I do not have the information to hand, but I assure him that the Department will write to him with it shortly.

[Mr Winnick]

I emphasise the need for the section 106 agreement to be looked into, for the reasons I stated. We will probably disagree about rent. I take the view that secure accommodation should be affordable. That is not an argument for today, but it will undoubtedly be debated in other places.

[Karen Bradley]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s comments. As I said, I do not have the specifics about section 106 with me, but I am sure that the information will be forthcoming and he will have it shortly.

The private rented sector is making a significant contribution to meeting housing need and can offer a number of advantages, including labour mobility. On 6 September, the Government announced plans to expand the private rented sector to give tenants more choice about where they live, following the recommendations in Sir Adrian Montague’s review of the potential for institutional investment in large-scale developments built specifically for long-term rent. The Government are setting up a new £200 million “build to rent” fund for developers in order to encourage construction for rent, and are providing up to £10 billion in debt guarantees covering both private rent and affordable housing for those investing in the long-term rental market.

[Mr Winnick]

The hon. Lady is being generous and courteous, and I appreciate it. I am sure that she heard my point that in all the years that I have had the privilege of being a Member of Parliament, no one has asked me if they could be rehoused by a private landlord. Has she as a Member of Parliament been asked that? Has she been approached at her surgery by anyone wanting help to find private rented accommodation?

[Karen Bradley]

I am afraid that I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman. I have, actually.

[Mr Winnick]

How many?

[Karen Bradley]

A number. Perhaps that is the difference in the make-up of affordable housing between Staffordshire Moorlands and Walsall.

There is support. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to work with Walsall Housing Group and other social housing providers in Walsall to consider other avenues that can be taken to help his constituents. I understand that when someone comes to a surgery, everybody wants to help and find the best solution for them. Anything that can be done to help is good.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue. As housing supply, including affordable housing, is a priority for the Government, I welcome his interest in the issue and I hope that he will have the satisfaction in the near future of seeing an increase in affordable housing in Walsall.

Tax Avoidance and Evasion

David Winnick Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) on initiating this important debate. I hope that I can take up one or two of the points made by Government Members.

The overwhelming majority of people in this country pay tax through pay-as-you-earn, in the same way as we in this House do. In my constituency, the average salary for full-time employment is under £23,000. I think we can proceed on the reasonable assumption that my constituents are not making inquiries about how to set up personal service companies, let alone make offshore tax arrangements. What is at stake, as my right hon. Friends the Members for Oldham West and Royton and for Barking (Margaret Hodge) rightly pointed out, is fairness and justice.

It simply cannot be right for some of the richest individuals in this country significantly to minimise their tax liability. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking also made the point that it cannot be right that those who receive a very high income—£500,000 or more—pay a lower rate of tax than my constituents who are earning £23,000. It is Robin Hood in reverse. That is why this debate is so important, and I hope that these discussions will not end without further action being taken by the Government.

The Prime Minister tried to make political capital out of the tax arrangements of a particular individual during the recent mayoral election in London, but it was that same Prime Minister who appointed Sir Philip Green to examine Government spending—I suppose we should be grateful that he was not asked to examine tax avoidance. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) said that we should not be unfair to those who create wealth, and that we should recognise their value. I do not dispute that, but I do dispute the way in which those who are heavily involved in industry, commerce or retail arrange their tax affairs in such a way that they pay nowhere near the amount of income tax that they should pay.

[Steve Baker]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman also heard me say that one of my two reasons for objecting to sophisticated tax avoidance schemes was that they involve people quitting the moral high ground. In a sense, I agree with him on this point but, ultimately, what I want is lower taxes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Winnick]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. If we are all for fairness in income tax arrangements, perhaps action can be taken.

I want to illustrate my point about the tax arrangements of the very rich, and I shall return to Sir Philip Green. He is not a non-dom. He resides and works in the United Kingdom, and he no doubt pays a fair share of tax. That is not in dispute. However, the well-known shops with which he is associated are actually owned by his wife, and she lives abroad, in Monaco, where apparently no tax is paid. That is an example involving one person—there are others—that illustrates the unfairness in the United Kingdom. A great deal of revenue is undoubtedly being lost as a result of the arrangements of that very rich individual and others, and I do not believe that that is fair. It seems that, few years ago, Sir Philip paid himself a modest £1.2 billion bonus, a lot of which went through various offshore accounts and tax havens and finally ended up in Monaco, where his wife resides.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton mentioned the amount of revenue that is lost as a result of such arrangements; I do not think that the figure he mentioned was disputed. Obviously, we can imagine how that money could be spent on hospitals and other essential facilities. In any case, it is absolutely wrong that there should be two or more different tax arrangements: one for the vast majority of our constituents and others for those who are very well off. That is why these points are being made today, especially from this side of the House.

When the Prime Minister tried to score political points by mentioning a particular candidate in the recent mayoral election, he did not of course mention Lord Ashcroft, a long-time deputy Conservative party chairman. I know that some of the Ashcroft money helped to provide funds for Conservative candidates in marginal constituencies. Lord Ashcroft apparently gave a pledge to give up his non-dom tax status in order to sit in the House of Lords. As far as we know, nothing was signed but a pledge was given, and the current Foreign Secretary, then leader of the Conservative party, was satisfied. We know now—it came out in the last weeks of the previous Parliament—that no such arrangements were made by Lord Ashcroft, who remained a non-dom.

It is interesting to note that in the United States—the least socialist country among all the democracies—no offshore tax arrangements are in place for its citizens. Wherever US citizens work abroad or wherever their money goes, they are subject to US tax regulations. It is very different from here. I must admit to being somewhat surprised when I learned that this was the position in America. All these offshore arrangements, tax havens and the rest simply need to be tackled, although whether this Government will tackle them is another matter.

Let me take up what my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking said. One issue relates to billionaires using these arrangements; another is the matter of personal service companies. I must confess that until someone was appointed to a public institution—a very high-profile one—in 1993, I was not aware of personal service companies, the purpose of which is to minimise one’s tax. I wrote to the director-general of the BBC before the Public Accounts Committee took the matter up. I asked how many of the BBC’s most senior managers—those earning £100,000 or more—had personal service companies. I received a prompt and courteous reply—there was no attempt to evade the question, although I would have used freedom of information facilities if need be—and I was told that there was only one such person. That is one manager, but the different position regarding presenters has arisen from the PAC.

Some of the most prominent broadcasters—not confined by any means to those of the BBC, as there are the commercial channels and others—and some other very prominent people in the media, including some who perhaps have liberal leanings, have arrangements whereby the amount of tax they pay is considerably less than it would be through PAYE. For all I know, there could be complications and administrative difficulties with personal service companies, but it is unfortunate, to say the least, that these highly paid individuals, perhaps receiving £500,000 or over £1 million a year—good people in many respects, I am sure, and very professional, as no one would doubt, irrespective of their private views—use an arrangement that substantially minimises the amount of income tax they pay. That is absolutely wrong.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) complained earlier about misinformation relating to tax avoidance. Was it not misinforming for the Government, at a time of high public indignation, to promise a “general anti-avoidance rule”, but then come up with something that is too narrow and limited to be deemed “general”, too indifferent and inert to be called anti-anything, and far too weak to be regarded as a “rule”?

[Mr Winnick]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, I would not expect a Conservative Government to take effective action, and it is most unlikely that they will do so. In fairness to my own side, we took some action in some respects, although I would have liked bolder action. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), I certainly hope that the next Labour Government—may that come about soon—will be far more stringent in dealing with these matters, which really need to be dealt with.

This country’s tax arrangements seem peculiar and odd, so let me repeat my earlier point. Whereas the large majority of people—my constituents and, I would imagine, the constituents of nearly every Member in the House—pay their taxes according to what has been agreed to by Parliament, there are those, be they billionaires or those whom I have described who earn very large sums, who pay less than what the House has determined. The sooner we end that position, the sooner we can be satisfied that not just our constituents but those with very substantial wealth and those who earn large incomes pay their tax as they should. This issue should continue to engage the House of Commons.

Banking Reform

David Winnick Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend, who is right to point out the lack of an apology from the Opposition for their role in the crisis, has persistently raised account portability. She will know that Sir John Vickers considered this matter in the report but opted for improvements to the switching process to make it easier and more straightforward for customers. It is important that we pursue that, although full account portability will be an option if the former does not prove effective. We also welcome the work that the FSA and the Bank of England are doing looking at the requirements on new entrants to the banking system to ensure that both the conduct and prudential requirements are appropriate and not disproportionate.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

On banking reform, would it not have been appropriate to make at least some reference to the outright greed of those who head the banks or to the millions of pounds that some of them get each year? Why no such condemnation—or is it the case that this Tory-led Government could not care less? What is all this business about “We’re all in it together”? It does not appear so, does it?

[Mr Hoban]

The hon. Gentleman should reflect for a moment on what happened when his Government were in power. Bankers were able to take their bonuses in cash in the year they were paid, while Lord Mandelson said that he was “intensely relaxed” about the filthy rich. What we have done since we came to office is put in place the toughest and most transparent pay regime of a major financial centre and ensured that shareholders have a stronger voice over bank pay. We have tackled the problem, which the previous Government simply neglected and allowed to fester and develop, thereby contributing towards the crisis that we have seen in the banking sector.

Public Appointees (Tax Arrangements)

David Winnick Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

The hon. Gentleman asks an interesting question, and he is right that someone might be earning small amounts of money from a number of different Departments. Of course, in that case it is likely to be a contractor, of the sort my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) referred to, who has multiple clients. It is not clear on the face of it that these rules should apply in those cases, but I will certainly consider the sort of case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

As someone who is not involved in a vendetta against the BBC, unlike some Tory Back Benchers, I can tell the Chief Secretary that, as a result of correspondence with the director-general of that organisation, I have been informed that there are just two full-time employees left at the BBC, both very high-earners, on personal service contracts and that that will end in July, which is certainly welcome. Why is it so difficult for the Treasury to close the loophole, whether in the public or private sectors, so that unless it is a genuine company there can be no way in which individuals pay less tax than they should be paying?

[Danny Alexander]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s remarks about the BBC, which is useful information for the House to have before it. I say to him in all seriousness that the rules relating to this sort of case—the IR35 rules—were put in place by the previous Government, and we are seeking to strengthen them through the consultation we have today. The coalition Government have done more than many previous Governments to take action on dealing with tax avoidance and evasion across the board, because it is vital in a time of austerity that everyone pays their fair share, and that is what we are doing. Frankly, it is what the Government of whom he was a part did not do.

Youth Unemployment and Bank Bonuses

David Winnick Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I think many of our constituents watching this debate will say exactly that. The Government are in denial. Youth unemployment is at a record high, and Government Members say, “There’s not a problem. We don’t need to do anything about it. Everything is fine.” That is not the reality for our constituents.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Even if this is a laughing matter for the Government, it certainly is not for us. My constituency has among the highest levels of youth unemployment. It is a tragedy—there is no other way to describe it—when young people are simply unable to find work. I have been in touch with Jobcentre Plus, and there is no doubt about the difficulties and hardships for such young people. Yet for the Government, it is a laughing matter.

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend speaks for the many families and young people in all our constituencies who are experiencing a crisis, and I give him credit for recognising their challenges.

Eurozone Crisis

David Winnick Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend has made an important point about the global role of the IMF. It is there to support economies that face challenging circumstances. There is a range of programmes in 53 states, and it is right for the IMF to have the resources that it needs if it is to help to stabilise the global economy.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Why are the EU leaders so fearful of democracy? In view of the massive cuts that are to be imposed on the Greek people under the deal that was negotiated this week, what sort of democracy would it be if they were denied the opportunity to say yes or no?

[Mr Hoban]

I do not think that anyone in the House is suggesting that the Greek people should not be in charge of their own destiny.